In a high-spirited exchange, Liddle chastised commenters for the “Dianafication” of the refugee crisis, demanding a more practical approach to dealing with the displaced.

“What’s really contemptible, Rod,” said the Colombia University professor, "is saying emotion should have no part in how we respond…”

“I’m interested in outcomes, not in your emotion," shot back Liddle, his brow firm, his eyes fixed. “I’m interested in what is good for those people [migrants] and what is good for this country, not in how you feel about yourself.”

Schama, flustered, went back in: “There’s nothing to be ashamed about having an emotional response to the suffering of four million Syrian refugees…”

Liddle, once again: “Then decide what to do about it.”

Now with some coal in the furnace, Schama hit back: “Do not presume to lecture me about the inadequacy of an emotional response to mass human suffering. Go back to your journalistic hackery and talk about outcomes, and turn your suburban face away from the plight of the miserable.”

Rod Liddle's "dianification" term on #bbcqt is exactly right. I knew there was something bothering me about the hysterics. #refugeescrisis

"I work bloody hard for my money, to provide for my children, to get them everything they've got and you're going to take it away from me," she said through tears. "I can hardly afford the rent I have to pay, I can hardly afford the bills I've got to do and you're going to take more from me."